Balancing 40K

[civsmitty]

*Wet blanket alert*

 

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing in favor of a certain faction or game. I am speaking in generalities and am not trying to persuade anyone.

 

I don't believe 40k can ever be balanced. We've got, what, 19-20 different factions or subfactions? Each one adding a complexity layer to the balancing effort. That's before you factor in keywords, too. As it stands right now, the Imperium has the most faction options and therefore the most ways to build a superpower army. Armies like Nids and Orks, don't.

 

Let me elaborate. Chess is a perfectly balanced game due to shared pieces and common rules for both sides. Player skill wins games, not random chance nor whether white or black have better rules. 40k is already at a negative due to reliance on dice, plus the aforementioned rules for each army. Obviously, it's impossible to achieve that level of balance. 

 

30k gameplay, however, is "more" balanced due to common units (in most cases, solar auxilia) being available to all armies and a limited allies system (yes, and legion rules play a factor). 

 

40k doesn't, for the most part, have unit commonality (with obvious exceptions). There's no "standard" unit. An ork boy doesn't equal a space marine doesn't equal a fire warrior doesn't equal a sister of battle. Sure, you can argue that these units have wildly different roles - an ork boy, generally, is going to kill a fire warrior if he doesn't get shot on the way there. But that very argument shows how 40k can't even approach the 50% mark of balance (chess being 100%).

 

The TL;DR of this whole thing is 40k can't be balanced without some severe changes to the rules that would leave 40k feeling less like 40k than it ever has (e.x - "balanced" wargear would have every army having the same weapons with different names). We can alter individual rules or armies to get closer, but there's always going to be someone left out in the cold.

[A.T.]

The TL;DR of this whole thing is 40k can't be balanced without some severe changes to the rules that would leave 40k feeling less like 40k than it ever has (e.x - "balanced" wargear would have every army having the same weapons with different names). We can alter individual rules or armies to get closer, but there's always going to be someone left out in the cold.

 

Non-symmetric game balance is entirely possible (see Starcraft for instance). It just becomes more difficult as you add more pieces and almost impossible when you start allowing players to mix and match them - the latter eliminates most of the levers you have to control the game.

 

Somewhere between the start of 5th and the final books of the edition (when it's escalation reached new heights with the GK and Crons) a player could choose any of the factions and not be a lost hope. There were major issues with the game rules and books but they were all contained enough to be fixable without breaking something else.

 

So it is possible, even with 40k.

[Zodd1888]

I agree that 40k can't be balanced.

I do say, however, that the discussion is important to create improvement.

I will also say I'm happy this topic exists but I feel it should exist to identify specific big picture issues (ie. CP, Soup, inconsistency of LOS ignoring attacks, etc.) and then start follow up topics (ie. PA discussion). This will allow more focus and a consistent message throughout the thread.

Just my two cents.

Focus on a problem, then solutions.

First step, identify problems, second step divide problems into manageable segments (ie. Are hordes a result of causation or correlation to CP), third step discussion of solutions relating to each segment. Fourth step is coming to an agreement on something actionable, but in our case it's to provide these ideas of solutions to GW FAQ team to help them build a better game.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Major_Gilbear
No discussion of politics please

[Tyriks]

CC definitely needs a boost. Maybe if you charge and I fall back the unit that charged can't be shot that turn still? But then some units would get rules to exempt them (like a sniper variant that lets you shoot them). That way, you are still somewhat safe. This would represent the fact that things are happening more or less simultaneously, so when those guns are starting to fire there are still friendlies in the mix.

 

Or, alternatively, if A charges B and B falls back, give A a melee version of overwatch (they attack again at WS 6+) when they fall back.

 

Both would need some tweaking and I'm sure there would be units with exceptions but would help generally.

[Beams]

 

 

 

Well you can't do anything else with that unit so it removes a unit from play for a turn, but I agree it needs looking at. You weather over-watch, get into combat, everyone fights and then next turn you're probably getting shot at again. Assuming you survive you have to weather over-watch all over again, a detriment to combat armies for sure.

 

I hate it when anyone gets into combat with my Leman Russ tanks but that should be my fault for letting someone charge them. With Mordian tanks potentially hitting on a 4+ on overwatch though I basically get a rounds shooting during my opponents turn anyway.

 

I suspect if the rule was just removed deep striking close combat armies would be unstoppable though. Starting to think balancing these games is harder than it looks!

In 7th, it was a huge negative play experience for me to play against a close combat army. Now that I can leave it, it at least gives me a worthwhile choice.

Out of interest, what army were you playing and what was theirs?

 

Because outside of broken deathstars, combat wasn't that strong!

I played Sisters, and a lot of times my team mate was guard. Usually played against chaos, with an abundance of buffed Juggerlords, Demon Princess,, running rampant.

 

Sisters and guard we're fairly low tier in 7th, and if any of those Red Space Marines touched us we just had to give up that squad. Power weapons were too expensive (15pts) and did next to nothing (thanks Str 3), and since we always swing last (initiative 3 is so much fun!), We'd always be depleted if we even got a chance to swing. Even if we charged!

 

If we survived the initial assault, we'd run and get slaughtered (only space Marines don't have to worry about sweeping advance), if we didn't run, he'd just slaughter us in his turn, move freely, and then charge another squad. We basically had to win the game turn one by either cutting off all avenues of attack (thanks to tanks becoming terrain. I miss that rule) or by killing his HQs inside squads before they got to us.

 

Sure, we could take our melee units bullgryns (we're terribly expensive in 7th), St Celestine (no eternal warrior until gathering storm), Battle Cannonesses (no eternal warrior) or even Repentia/E.Battle Conclaves (prohibitively expensive, glass cannon and expensive in real life) but it was never worth it, since iniative 3 or less meant we never got to swing even if we assualted first, and we're usually too damaged to do much damage once we were able to attack.

 

Honestly, 8th's close combat is still really good, but it finally allows you to interact meaningfully with the other army if you are not a cc army.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Beams

[civsmitty]

 

The TL;DR of this whole thing is 40k can't be balanced without some severe changes to the rules that would leave 40k feeling less like 40k than it ever has (e.x - "balanced" wargear would have every army having the same weapons with different names). We can alter individual rules or armies to get closer, but there's always going to be someone left out in the cold.

 

Non-symmetric game balance is entirely possible (see Starcraft for instance). It just becomes more difficult as you add more pieces and almost impossible when you start allowing players to mix and match them - the latter eliminates most of the levers you have to control the game.

 

Somewhere between the start of 5th and the final books of the edition (when it's escalation reached new heights with the GK and Crons) a player could choose any of the factions and not be a lost hope. There were major issues with the game rules and books but they were all contained enough to be fixable without breaking something else.

 

So it is possible, even with 40k.

 

 

This was my entire point. When the allied system was added, then expanded, 40k's hope of true balance was lost. 

[Lysere]

I'll summarize my thoughts from the 8th ed Soup discussion thread.

 

Don't completely decouple command points and detachments, instead reward people more for using less detachments and factions.

 

Currently if you have 2 HQs and 6 elites it's better to take two vanguard detachments. My suggestion there would make it better to keep them all in one if you want more command points while splitting them up would give you more choice in terms of chapter tactics or faction.

 

There would also be incentive to stick to one faction by awarding further command points.

 

Bring the Battalion down to 2 CP, the Brigade down to 4-5. and give 2-3 CP for each unused detachment. Also bring the super heavy down to 1-2. So in a normal 2k game you can have 3 detachments for matched play. By sticking to a single detachment made of one faction you could get just as many command points as you would now with an allied brigade.

 

Obviously the idea is still rough but that's what I have so far.

[Wargamer]

A workaround to the CP issue might be to somehow tie investment into it. 120 points of Guardsmen should not award the same CP as 390 points of Space Marines... and likewise, 5 naked Scouts should not give the same reward as three full-sized Intercessors.

[Schlitzaf]

Just to ask this, instead of nerfing Battlelion/Brigade (through I personally think Battlelion should be 4CP). What are thoughts of increasing Speciality Detachments to 2CP?

[Azekai]

Honestly what are the thoughts of return of defensive weapon mechanic? Weapons on a vehicle under a certain strength can shoot in combat. (Through I’d add an addendum weapons are treated as Assault (X)).

It is a very powerful ability... though maybe if applied to already underwhelming weapons, it could be good. Making flamers defensive weapons seems like a cool idea.

[Lysere]

Just to ask this, instead of nerfing Battlelion/Brigade (through I personally think Battlelion should be 4CP). What are thoughts of increasing Speciality Detachments to 2CP?

 

My problem with increasing CPs awarded by detachments is it rewards soup lists more. It would be better to bring them down and reward people for not mixing factions instead.

 

The goal should be to get people to actually use the detachment's they take rather than just bolting on another one. If you really need six elites for your list then take it, but if you can fit the entire list into that single detachment it would be better than just taking two vanguard detachments in terms of CPs.

 

My main list only makes decent use of one of the battalions because I use all three detachments just for the factions to make the list. If I dropped my scions then it would be better for me to simply break off my mechanicus force into two detachments rather than stick to the one they have right now.

[Schlitzaf]

I’d like to see in my ideal world

Bridge to 8

Battlelion/Superheavy to 4

Speciality to 2

Patrol to 1

 

Then have it so for each unused detachment slot you get Additonal CP Depending

1 Less: +2(5)

2 Less: +4(7)

3 Less: +7(10)

4 Less: +11(14)

Etc

So a 2K List with only a Battlelion

Would have 10 or 11 CP on average. Also codify 1 Detachment + 1 Detachment per thousand rounding up.

[Lysere]

I’d like to see in my ideal world

Bridge to 8

Battlelion/Superheavy to 4

Speciality to 2

Patrol to 1

 

Then have it so for each unused detachment slot you get Additonal CP Depending

1 Less: +2(5)

2 Less: +4(7)

3 Less: +7(10)

4 Less: +11(14)

Etc

So a 2K List with only a Battlelion

Would have 10 or 11 CP on average. Also codify 1 Detachment + 1 Detachment per thousand rounding up.

 

Not sure I agree with increasing the number of CPs for each unused detachment after a certain point. Better to keep it consistent I feel and keep detachments roughly on par if not lower than that for most so taking another detachment has an actual impact on your CPs but still a solid idea. I'm not sure Super heavy should go up since by its nature you won't usually be taking all of your detachments with it due to points cost alone.

 

Also I don't think patrol should grant anything unless it's restricted to not granting stratagems. Lose out on 1 CP in exchange for twice as many strats seems like a bargain. At least the battalion and brigade combined with the bonus for unused detachments is enough to have some impact. (As in two battalions would come up lower than the one brigade would given the unused detachment bonus.)

 

Also still think there should be a bonus for mono faction.

[MARK0SIAN]

For me the top priorities to make the game more balanced (in no particular order) are:

 

1) Give more weight to a models offensive output when determining their points cost. This would see some models go up in points and some go down. The problem at the moment is a lot of models cost a fortune in points but don’t actually inflict a lot of damage. They obviously have other traits to compensate, perhaps more wounds, better armour etc. But too often some very expensive models deal very little damage compared to the equivalent points value of several smaller units.

 

2) Stop Mortal wound spam. The level to which it can be used and it’s effects are wildly imbalanced between armies

 

3) Reduce the overabundance Of invulnerable saves on non elite units. It causes imbalance because it makes basic units in some factions ridiculously more durable than basic units in other factions when their isn’t much of a points difference between them.

 

4) Cap hit modifiers so your hit roll can never be changed by more than 1. Aside from the recent Eldar mischief, these to hit modifiers cause a huge imbalance between factions that can stack them and those that can’t. Even a -1 to hit on an army robs a guard or tau army of a third of its effective shooting.

 

5) reduce the number of hit modifiers in the game. Similar to above but I don’t think they should be army wide, only on a few specific units like fast flyers or dedicated stealth units.

 

6) dramatically improve anti-horde weaponry. There are too many weapons that have a random number of shots. The number of shots should scale with the size of the unit you’re attacking or larger ordnance weapons should change their shot numbers to D3 +3 so you’re always guaranteed at least four and it’s way more consistent. Even something like reroll hits on units above a certain size would be good The current mechanics lead to massive imbalance between horde armies and others.

 

7) shot volume and the abundance of AP modifying weapons means that armour is not as good as it should be. If you have a high armour force you pay a lot for it but many weapons either alter it considerably or they pump out so many low strength shots that you’re bound to fail the save. It makes units that should feel elite, feel like they’re dropping like flies. I would like some additional rules for elite units along the lines of ‘this models armour is so good it reduces the ap of shots by 1’ The current imbalance greatly favours quantity over quality because quality doesn’t survive very long and can’t inflict as much damage whilst alive.

 

8) CP from a detachment should only be allowed to be spent on that faction. Guard CPs for Guard stratagems, marine ones for marine stratagems etc. This may go someone to aiding the balance issues between factions that can ally easily and those that can’t.

 

With regard to some other suggestions. Definitely feel like terrain needs looking at. Too many games are over in turn two because Alpha strikes are just too devastating. Better terrain rules would help.

 

I’d also like to see line of sight return to being from the body of a model to the body of another model. You shouldn’t be able to draw line of sight from a spear tip, bannner or helmet plume.

Edited February 9, 2018 by MARK0SIAN

[Schlitzaf]

Having one less, the extra CP granted is equivalent to a Specialty Detachment, and then if you have two less, you essentially get a free Battalion worth of CP. Having three less gives you just under a brigade worth of CP, so on and so forth. Its supposed to be slightly less than doing like triple battalions, but that also requires more troop taxes. So you'll actual tabletop ability is less, and then their are fewer stratagems for troops in particular. And if you a standard, battalion + specialty, you'll get similar CP to a double battalion (before bonus kicks in). The difference between 2 CP or an interruption. 

 

While forcing a brigade as you noted, would give more than double battalion, because the extra CP is equivalent to a battalion or double specialty.

[Tyriks]

This is a little ironic, but we could take the mechanic from the super-soup detachment in Gathering Storm to reduce soups. Make it that bringing a minimally-filled Battalion is the same cp but maxing out each type gives a little boost so that filled out detachments give more CP than the same number of slots in two or three separate ones.

[Captain Idaho]

The Primary Detachment idea can help fix soups. I'd say Relics and Stratagems can only come from the Codex of the primary detachment.

 

Have an allied Detachment cost CPs and I think job is a good 'un.

[Wargamer]

This is a little ironic, but we could take the mechanic from the super-soup detachment in Gathering Storm to reduce soups. Make it that bringing a minimally-filled Battalion is the same cp but maxing out each type gives a little boost so that filled out detachments give more CP than the same number of slots in two or three separate ones.

But this still rewards minimal unit sizes. There is no version of this where filling your troops with 10-man Intercessors is going to net bigger rewards than using 5-man Scout Squads.

 

Ideally, the system would be based on points invested, not unit count.

[Tyriks]

Why do we need to punish MSU? I proposed that as a way to encourage single faction armies. I have no problem at all with MSU being used in the game.

[Zodd1888]

I like the following ideas so far out of everything:

 

- Starting at X CP with Primary Detatchment and any further allied detatchments cost CP.

- Minimum HQ of Detatchment multipled by X (3 for mono, 2 for mixed) plus 2 per additional HQ.

- CP only apply to faction of detatchment used ro generate CP (can be used in conjunction with above)

-Gathering Storm method

 

I specifically like the HQ because it doesn't really make a difference on how you run units (MSU/10+).

[Schlitzaf]

Any suggestions that involve directly punishing allies or placing a punitive cost, in other words, shouldn’t happen. The cost is having to take an additional detachment and the points spent on said units.

 

When your detachment count is limited to 3, that and average 200 Point is a real costs factor. Half of these issues feel like is that people are angry at folks allying Gaurdsman in. Or someone not playing to their self-imagined feel of fluffly.

 

If you do take issue with allies and believe issue should be ‘fixed’ what should be fixed is not punishing players who want to play with their entire collection or use their various armies they have collected over the years. But should reward those who focused on a single army.

 

Not by removing an armies flavor I.e so not by having it so adding any allies removes your chapter tactic. But by adding rewards, to player a more focused list. Having Battleforged Detachment Rules, gain an addendum “For each factional Keyword that is shared by every unit in the army, beyond one, add one more CP.”

 

So a pure IG Army, that runs various auxiliaries, and a standard Gaurdsman. Gains +1 CP because beyond (Imperium) only shared Keyword is Astra Militarum. If you ran an Astra Telepathica Army, (SoS + Primaris Pyskers), you gain +1 CP.

 

A pure Admech list that only ran Cult Mechanicus, would gain +3, (Forged World), (Cult Mechanicus) and (AdMech). If they ran Skitarii Units it only be +2. This means hybridizing in codex would likely give you +1 CP Maximum. Adding any allies out of codex means 0 extra CP.

 

If you want a Chaos example, a Soup Chaos Force, that had it so everyone was (Khorne) would unlike most Imperial Armies still gain +1 CP. And even in codex, you could add +3, (Legion, Heretic Astartes, Mark). So on and so forth.

 

A DA example, a pure Deathwing List would get +3, (DA, Adeptus Astartes and Deathwing). If we wanted to curb allies and favor army purity, that is the kind of solution I think would be best. More narrow the army, you gain some additonal CP in recognization of that fact.

[MARK0SIAN]

I have to agree, no one should be punished for taking allies. They’re extremely justifiable from a lore/fluff perspective not to mention allowing players to use their models. For people on a limited budeget, the only way they may be able to meet a certain points requirement is to use every model they own from various factions. People should not be punished simply because they can’t afford a full 2000 or 3000 point guard army or marine army.

[A.T.]

“For each factional Keyword that is shared by every unit in the army, beyond one, add one more CP.”

 

Surely the end result of that is that big well supplied factions like space marines are doing fine while the small, unable to work without allies factions like the sisters of silence are penalised for being small.

 

It's almost always the case that when you try to put a bonus/penalty tied to some combination of units that those armies without many units suffer disproportionately.

[Captain Idaho]

I disagree that there shouldn't be a "punishment" (I prefer the term downside) to using allies. We've all seen just how many lists are built around cheap Astra Millitarum building Battalions and numbers swelling etc then some powerful cheese?

[MARK0SIAN]

But those lists using cheap Guard battalions are a result of the system itself being broken/easily exploitable. They’re not a result of taking allies by itself.

 

If the only reason people are taking allies is for CP boosts or cheap numbers then I would say the problem lies with the CP system or mono-codex builds not being as desirable. To make them more desirable you need to add in incentives/rewards/upsides for taking them, but those incentives should be bonuses to the codex force, not punishments/downsides for the allied force.

 

The gathering storm which started 8th is essentially the story of one large allied force of Cadians, ultramarines, Black Templars, sisters of battle, mechanicum and even Eldar allying together. It would be a shame for 8th edition to then punish or provide artificial downsides for attempting to emulate this.

Edited February 10, 2018 by MARK0SIAN